Lance Armstrong to be stripped of Tour de France titles and banned from cycling

[hebroncougar]

Originally Posted by Mutaman

For what its worth, not necessarily true: Armstrong was a brilliant tactician and ran a team that always seemed to work better than the other teams, something that's a huge advantage ion the Tour. Armstrong also was a "climber" which is a necessary skill to win the Tour but unlike most climbers, Armstrong could really sprint as well.

I'm not sure where you're going- on one hand you say Armstong was so dominant that he must have doped, but on the other hand,you agree that everybody doped. So where's the advantage?

Bottom line, he passed the tests, its a long time ago, its all based on "he said she said" evidence. It has all the earmarks of a witch hunt. Who cares anymore?

Isn't it that same team you're bragging on that is all saying he was indeed, doping?

[gonelong]

I can't seem to muster up any outrage one way or another for a guy that rode a bike.

GL

[traderumor]

Observe: rough week for the surname--Lance stripped of awards, Neil dies two days later.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966

Imagine if MLB, the NFL or the NBA gave a lifetime ban and stripped an athlete of all awards/wins based on heresay and "fully consistent w/ doping" test results. Do you think there would be a lawsuit?

I suspect Armstrong doped. Sometimes certain things just seem too unreal to be true (7 Tour de France titles, right Melky?).

This is where I'm coming from. Since when are you guilty if you are 500-0 in drug tests but a few people "say" you did it?

OK, maybe he did, but if he passes the tests then he "wins" is the way I see it.

[camisadelgolf]

If this had gone far enough in court, there would've been plenty of people to say Armstrong is guilty. Then there'd be plenty of people with form of evidence or another to back it up (even if it's just a witness testimony). By quitting now, he never has to admit guilt, and his name won't be dragged through the mud. Even if he had won the lawsuit, there still would have been plenty of skeptics out there. Next thing you know, the witnesses are writing books about him and making a bunch of money by saying they saw him dope. This really is his best option. What strikes me as funny is that there are a lot more people saying "he wasn't caught" instead of "he didn't dope". I think it says a lot about our culture.

[oneupper]

This is analogous the whole HOF debate. No one is sending Armstrong to jail. They are simply stripping him of honors/privileges which -after analyzing evidence- they decided that he doesn't deserve.

The courts acquitted the Chicago 8. Judge Landis banned them anyway. Good for him and good the cycling authorities.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

What strikes me as funny is that there are a lot more people saying "he wasn't caught" instead of "he didn't dope". I think it says a lot about our culture.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. I think in order to sanction someone, you must catch him. I'd hate to think you could be found guilty of speeding if ten folks testified that they saw you going over the speed limit. I understand that sports has a different burden than law in that they can police themselves but I think they're going too far here

[NJReds]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

Yes, that's what I'm saying. I think in order to sanction someone, you must catch him. I'd hate to think you could be found guilty of speeding if ten folks testified that they saw you going over the speed limit. I understand that sports has a different burden than law in that they can police themselves but I think they're going too far here

I agree with Sea Ray here. Why are they wasting time and money on testing someone 500 times if it's completely discounted because 10 people said "I think I saw him do it."

Whether it's Lance Armstrong or anyone else, I don't understand the point/role of the testing process if it can be completely ignored.

[Hoosier Red]

Originally Posted by NJReds

I agree with Sea Ray here. Why are they wasting time and money on testing someone 500 times if it's completely discounted because 10 people said "I think I saw him do it."

Whether it's Lance Armstrong or anyone else, I don't understand the point/role of the testing process if it can be completely ignored.

I don't think it's ignored. It's supplemented because there is verifiable evidence that the test could have been cheated.

No test is taken as an absolute standard, especially if there's evidence someone cheated the test.

And again, Armstrong was (in theory) presumed innocent and was free to challenge the evidence given by those who accused im. He is choosing not to challenge the assertions and because he's not challenging the evidence provided against him, he's found guilty.

[IslandRed]

Originally Posted by Hoosier Red

And again, Armstrong was (in theory) presumed innocent and was free to challenge the evidence given by those who accused im. He is choosing not to challenge the assertions and because he's not challenging the evidence provided against him, he's found guilty.

I think the "presumed innocent" part is where you're wrong. In a presumed-innocent scenario, the accusers have to prove they're telling the truth. From everything I've read, the USADA accepted the accusations at face value and put the burden on Armstrong to prove the accusers were lying. And if all the passed drug tests aren't good enough, then what could possibly be?

A lot of us have hit this scenario at some point in life, even if it's a six-year-old being tattled on for spitwad-throwing, not saying I ever did such a thing... there's a dispute, the authority figure believes someone else over you, and short of inventing time travel so you can take them back to the time and place of the incident, there's nothing you can do about it.

To paraphrase an article I read, a drug test could lie but people definitely do lie.

Having said all that, I'm not proclaiming Armstrong innocent -- for him to dominate a sport while being the only clean one in the lead pack strains credulity -- but just taking a position on the process.

[savafan]

Originally Posted by IslandRed

Having said all that, I'm not proclaiming Armstrong innocent -- for him to dominate a sport while being the only clean one in the lead pack strains credulity -- but just taking a position on the process.

At the same time, if he cheated, then who won those races? If everyone racing in the races cheated, then wasn't it a level playing field? And if it was a level playing field with all of the cyclists cheating, Armstrong still blew away the competition, so who was cheated?

[savafan]

delayed double post after I came back to the website

[RedsBaron]

Originally Posted by traderumor

Observe: rough week for the surname--Lance stripped of awards, Neil dies two days later.

One news network initially had an article online that stated that "Neil Young", the first man to walk on the moon, had died.

[texasdave]

Originally Posted by RedsBaron

One news network initially had an article online that stated that "Neil Young", the first man to walk on the moon, had died.

I am assuming it was a Harvest Moon. In any case, Long May He Run.

[camisadelgolf]

From reddit: if officials awarded Lance Armstrong's 2005 Tour De France title to the next fastest finisher who has never been linked to doping, they'd have to give it to the 23rd place finisher.